Debate tonight

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Debate tonight
303
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 10:54pm
So, what did everybody think? This debate was my first (missed last yr's) and I enjoyed it. I liked how they were both respectful to each other and professional. No sighing, making facial expressions, slouching etc. I can't wait for the vp debates. :) XOXO.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-03-2004
Sun, 10-03-2004 - 4:50pm
yes, bush hasn't had a chance to be challenged and now that he has been he can't seem to take the heat! after the first debate i wonder how anyone in their right mind can continue to support bush..btw, we did have some booze in the house and that made bush's funny expressions even funnier!
Avatar for savagefreedom
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2003
Sun, 10-03-2004 - 5:21pm

How many people

Avatar for papparic
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 10-03-2004 - 7:28pm
No one needs to write in my defense. I alone am responsible for what I say. No one need comment either one way or another. Someone not writing in support of my ranting is not proof of them agreeing. People can disagree with my opinions and choose to hold their tongue instead of becoming engaged in a discussion with a lunatic. Of course, I think my opinions are correct, or I wouldn't voice them. But I have always know my views belong to the minority. I honestly wouldn't know what to do with myself if everyone agreed with me.

I'm not sure how the laws work in your country. Is a person guilty until proven innocent? Silence is not a sign of agreement, it is merely silence.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Sun, 10-03-2004 - 8:40pm
If it isnt troops or money, then it is meaningless.

We have plenty of people to assist in the other matters, including the UN.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Sun, 10-03-2004 - 9:26pm
You seem to have missed my point. I was responding to a post about how things are going better in Iraq than it is portrayed by the media.

I was pointing out that our casualities are going UP month by month, and therefore things are not going well or getting better IMO.

Yeah, I've heard all the justifications & rationalizations for why it's OK for all these people to die, but I just can't go along with it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 12:18am

Hi Imahockeymom!


Welcome to the board!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

Visit My Website!

Email me!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 12:20am

Hello minabina63!


Welcome to the board!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

Visit My Website!

Email me!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 1:45am
Here's the thing Ric, Blueishxx was véry angry, saying: <<"Because Canada did not join Bush when he chose to invade Iraq does not give you or anyone else the right to spit on the contributions and lives Canada has given and continues to give in the fight against terrorists.">>.

S/he didn't condemn your initial post, (I even copied it, so s/he didn't need to look for it), while you did the exact same thing she condemned another poster for. Exposing a double standard, which I pointed out, and s/he didn't like that. That's all.

Thank you for acknowledging what you did re your initial post, and yes I'll take your word :).

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-11-2004
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 10:07am
I was so looking forward to the first debate just so I could see Kerry beat Bush. I was not disappointed. It was clear in less than the first ten minutes who was the stronger candidate. Kerry is an excellent speaker, and he clearly did his homework. Even though I do not support Bush, I am suprised he did so poorly. I had heard previously that he had never lost a debate. For those who think he did not loose the debate, all you had to do was look at his facial expressions, even Bush knew he was loosing. He kept repeating the same thing about Kerry changing his position on the war and how it did not send the right message, and how he would not make a strong president even after Kerry explained why he had changed his position. Bush was sinking, and that was all he had to hold on to. He was so slow to speak on his topics that I mentioned it to DH, DH replied that he has been advised to think about his answers before he speeks because he has made so many mistakes in the past.

I spent a better part of the evening reading all the replies on this topic. Here is my opinion on some of the things that I read.

All of us will forever remember the fateful day of 911. On that day no one was thinking about SH. Yes the world is better off without him in power, but the WOT was about making the people responsible for 911 pay for all the pain and horror that they caused to the innocent people of our country. Other countries felt our pain, people around the world cried for us and mourned our losses. I was born in NY and have many relatives there. My Uncle is a NY detective, I remember trying to get in touch with them that day, trying to make sure everyone was ok, but not being able to reach them because the phones were out of service. My Uncle had the duty of standing over a conveyer belt for 12 hours a day looking through debri for body parts as part of the clean up effort. This was not caused by SH. When the world found out that OBL was the man behind these unspeakable acts, did any one think, lets go get SH? No, they wanted OBL and the terrorists to pay. We started out on the right path, and I don't know of anyone besides the terrorists that were not on our side at this point whether they were backing us up or not. A short time later, Bush flip flopped, thats right Bush, all of a sudden our troops and our focus turned to Iraq instead.

During the debates, Kerry said he has a plan for peace, and a time line to get our troops out in 6 months. I hope this time line is accurate but I will not be suprised if it takes longer. I hope that under his presidency other countries will be more willing to help with this plan for peace, and help Iraq to become a better place. But it is clear that they are not happy with Bush and the decisions he has and is making.

About a week or so ago I read a story about a woman who used to be in the military, she is inactive, served her time and thought she was done and could move on. Well there is a back door draft going on. She received orders to start training so she could go to Iraq. Lucky for her she got pregnant, unfortunately this only temporarily gets her out of active duty. Weeks after her baby is born she will have to leave and go into active duty.

In all the posts I read, I never heard anyone insulting our allies, the point they were trying to get across, is that there are too few of them. That doesn't mean they don't appreciate what any of them are doing, just that we would all be better off if there was more help, whether it is more troops or financing. You see, now that we have invaded Iraq, we can not just leave it in shambles. We have a moral obligation to help them become self sustaining. This is something that can not happen overnight. We will surely need as much help with this task as we can possibly get. This will probably be where the other allies will be willing to help Kerry.

Republicans who support Bush do not like to hear what other countries think about him and his policies, but they do have a right to be heard, and they will probably be more willing to help out more under a new administration than they are now because they feel so strongly against him.

I tried not to attack anyone with this post, just offered my opinions on the facts, so please do not attack me or call me names.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Mon, 10-04-2004 - 11:00am
<>

My, aren't things evolving....NOW you're suddenly tacking money onto your list. That isn't what you/we started out debating originally. Your argument was that Kerry both somehow promised TROOPS from France and Germany and they have both said that the chances of them supplying troops was unlikely.

From the article....I see mention of troops....no specific mention of money:

<<"I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president," Gert Weisskirchen, member of parliament and foreign policy expert for Germany's ruling Social Democratic Party, said in an interview.

"That said, Mr Kerry seems genuinely committed to multilateralism and as president he would find it easier than Mr Bush to secure the German government's backing in other matters.">>

I don't know what they meant by "the German government's backing in other matters." Friendly articles in French and German newpapers? Generally one can't do anything without it involving some sort of financial component.

Also, this seems to me, to point in the direction of monetary support. One cannot excuse debt or train security forces without spending a penny or two.

<>

Pages